Karnataka High Court
WA/250/2026 of RANGAPPA BHOVI Vs THE PRESIDENT on 31 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010069052026 NC: 2026:KHC:47128-DB WA No. 250 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 250 OF 2026 (CS-RES) BETWEEN: 1.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 250 OF 2026 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
RANGAPPA BHOVI
S/O. SANNA RANGAPPA BHOVI
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
3-30/1(1) NEKKILA ASHOKNAGAR (POST)
MANGALORE - 575 006
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI RANGAPPA BHOVI, PARTY-IN-PERSON)
AND:
1.
THE PRESIDENT
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
MAHILA MULTY PURPOSE
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD COLONY
KALLALLI
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201
2.
SMT. HEMAVATTHI
W/O. JAGADISH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
SHIVADARSHANI
NEAR TITUPALY CHOULTRY
BALRAJ URS ROAD
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201
Digitally
signed by
AMBIKA H B
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
3.
THE REGISTRAR
GOVT. KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
ALI ASKAR ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 052
4.
THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201
…RESPONDENTS
(MS. SHWETA M. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI BASAVARAJ S. SAPPANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R-3 & R-4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS BEFORE THE WRIT COURT AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF JUSTICE POSTED IN THE WRIT COURT DATED
27.10.2025, IN W.P. No. 23448/2021 (CS-RES) AND GIVE THE
JUSTICE POOR DALITH AND SENIOR CITIZEN.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.23448/2021 (CS-RES).
HC-KAR
2. The appellant had preferred the said petition, inter alia, seeking an order cancelling the registered sale deed No.3860 dated 18.08.2010 in respect of the property bearing No.HIG-26, II Stage, K.H.B Colony, Kallahalli, Shivamogga [schedule property]. It is stated that respondent No.1 − Shivamogga District Mahila Multipurpose Co-operative Society [Society] had extended a loan to the original owner which was not repaid. In view of the above, on 25.02.2009, the Registrar, Government of Karnataka Co- operative Societies (respondent No.3) granted permission to the Society to sell the schedule property. Accordingly, the Society conducted an auction; 5 persons had participated in the public auction conducted on 13.08.2010 and Smt.Hemavathi (respondent No.2) was declared the highest bidder. Accordingly, the schedule property was registered in the name of respondent No.2 by the impugned sale deed dated 18.08.2010.
3. The appellant filed the petition for cancellation of the sale deed and for conducting an enquiry. The appellant claimed that he was ready to pay an amount higher than `15,50,000/- which was the highest bid. The appellant who appears in person, submits that
HC-KAR
he was ready to bid upto `18 lakh for the subject property. In his writ petition, the appellant indicated that on 15.05.2014, he was ready to bid upto `22 lakh.
4. It is the appellant's case that the auction notice had not been widely published in two dailies as required and therefore, the auction was liable to be set aside. He is essentially aggrieved by the manner in which the auction is conducted.
5. It is relevant to note that the appellant's complaint has been disposed of by an endorsement dated 22.02.2011 holding that the auction was conducted as per the requisite conditions by a public auction. Indeed, the appellant did not immediately take any steps but, after 9 years he has filed the writ petition, which was disposed of by the impugned order. Notwithstanding that the petition had been filed at a belated stage, in our view it ought to have been rejected on this ground alone.
6. The learned Single Judge examined the appellant’s contention that the auction was conducted without sufficient notice and noted that the auction notice was published in 'Nudigida',
HC-KAR
which is a local daily newspaper which had been in regular publication since 15.08.2005. It was also noted that the auction was displayed in the website of Department of Information and Public Relations, therefore, the learned Single Judge found no merit in the writ petition and disposed of the same.
7. We find no infirmity with the impugned order. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
8. The pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2